See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343760206

How to Use Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Data to Monitor Training Load in
the "Real World" of Elite Soccer

Article in Frontiers in Physiology · August 2020

DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00944

CITATIONS READS

0 347

5 authors, including:

G. Rave Urs Granacher

As Monaco Universität Potsdam
12 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS 323 PUBLICATIONS 5,360 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel A. Boullosa Anthony C. Hackney

Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
140 PUBLICATIONS 1,259 CITATIONS 439 PUBLICATIONS 6,114 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exercising women View project

Effectiveness of Traditional Strength vs. Power Training on Muscle Strength, Power and Speed with Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Urs Granacher on 20 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Edited by:
Luca Paolo Ardigò,
University of Verona, Italy
Reviewed by:
Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis,
University of West Attica, Greece
Beat Knechtle,
University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
*Correspondence:
Urs Granacher
urs.granacher@uni-potsdam.de
Hassane Zouhal
hassane.zouhal@univ-rennes2.fr
† ORCID:
Urs Granacher
orcid.org/0000-0002-7095-813X
‡ Present
address:
Daniel Boullosa
Sport and Exercise Science,
James Cook University, Townsville,
QLD, Australia
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Exercise Physiology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Physiology
Received: 09 May 2020
Accepted: 14 July 2020
Published: 20 August 2020
Citation:
Ravé G, Granacher U, Boullosa D,
Hackney AC and Zouhal H (2020)
How to Use Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) Data to Monitor
Training Load in the “Real World” of
Elite Soccer. Front. Physiol. 11:944.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00944
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
OPINION
published: 20 August 2020
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00944
How to Use Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) Data to Monitor
Training Load in the “Real World” of
Elite Soccer
Guillaume Ravé 1 , Urs Granacher 2*† , Daniel Boullosa 3‡ , Anthony C. Hackney 4 and
Hassane Zouhal 5*
1
Toulouse Football Club, Toulouse, France, 2 Division of Training and Movement Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam,
Germany, 3 INISA, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Brazil, 4 Department of Exercise & Sport
Science; Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States, 5 Univ Rennes, M2S
(Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé), Rennes, France
Keywords: acute chronic workload ratio, injury risk, physical performance, monitoring, external training load
INTRODUCTION
Modern physical training in elite sport is characterized by the systematic and continuous
assessment of data on competitive and training performances (Clemente et al., 2019a). In team
sports, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology is probably the most used monitoring tool to
record workloads during training and competitions (Akenhead and Nassis, 2016).
In soccer, the training load (TL) has previously been defined as the input variable that is
manipulated to elicit the desired training response (Impellizzeri et al., 2019) and it can be
differentiated into external and internal loads (Jaspers et al., 2017). While external TL refers to the
overall activities of a player, internal TL encompasses the psycho-physiological stress imposed on
the player’s body (Jaspers et al., 2017). Both internal and external TLs represent the cumulative
exposure of each player to training and competitions (Jaspers et al., 2018). TL can be assessed
by means of internal and external measures (Impellizzeri et al., 2019). For internal measures,
heart rate or rating of perceived exertion have traditionally been applied (Owen et al., 2015).
For external measures, GPS data have proven to be a valid and reliable means (Nikolaidis et al.,
2018). GPS measures time motion parameters represented by the distance covered and the number
of efforts at different running velocities (e.g., up to 25.2 km/h), as well as bouts of acceleration
and deceleration throughout an activity (e.g., up to 3 m/s² or −3 m/s², respectively) at different
intensities (Akenhead and Nassis, 2016) over a few meters which are too short to reach high speed
running (Varley et al., 2017).
However, it must be emphasized that the concept of GPS metrics based on thresholds have not
yet reached consensus in the scientific literature (Rago et al., 2019b). Nevertheless, GPS data are
frequently recorded to monitor external TL during game or training situations for each soccer
player individually as well as for the whole team (Buchheit and Simpson, 2017). Indeed, evidence
suggest that the external TL management is key to maintain physical fitness (e.g., VO2 max;
Clemente et al., 2019b) and match physical performances over time (Lee and Mukherjee, 2019).
Thus, the total distance covered correlated negatively with the percentage of changes in mean HR
during submaximal aerobic tests (Rago et al., 2019c). Moreover, the time spent in the maximal
aerobic speed zone highly correlates with changes in aerobic fitness (Fitzpatrick et al., 2018). Game
physical performance is random as it depends on situational factors (e.g., score, match location,
opponent; Lago-Peñas, 2012; Redwood-Brown et al., 2018) and players’ pitch position (Barnes
et al., 2014; Ingebrigtsen et al., 2015; Akenhead et al., 2016). Thereby, monitoring of high-speed
1 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al.
running (Sæterbakken et al., 2019) and the capacity to sustain
a high number of accelerations and decelerations (Russell et al.,
2016) is highly recommended during training and competition
(Pettersen et al., 2018).
Beyond physical performance, external TL management is
associated with sustaining musculo-tendinous injuries (Colby
et al., 2017; Malone et al., 2018a). The acute to chronic workload
ratio (ACWR) concept recently introduced by Gabbett (2016),
has widely been used in sport science and practice. The ACWR
is a mathematical calculation which consists of dividing the TL
of the current week (acute TL) by the rolling average TL or
exponentially weighted moving averages of the previous 4 weeks
(chronic TL; Gabbett, 2016; Williams et al., 2017). Avoiding
TL peaks and a progression in the increase of TL is therefore
recommended to reduce the injury risk associated to TL (Gabbett,
2020; Griffin et al., 2020; Maupin et al., 2020). Along these lines,
a “danger zone” for an increased injury risk has been suggested
to exist when the ACWR is between 0.8 and 1.5 (Gabbett, 2016).
This means that when the acute load is <0.8 times or is >1.5
times the chronic training load, the injury risk increases during
the subsequent week (Gabbett, 2016). Under this situation, it
seems that the injury risk can be modified by high levels of
aerobic fitness, greater lower body strength, a reduced history of
injuries, and a younger age of the soccer players (Malone et al.,
2018a; Gabbett, 2020).
In professional soccer, low chronic external TL associated with
rapid and significant increases in the acute workload, increases
the risk of non-contact injury (Duhig et al., 2016; Bowen et al.,
2017, 2019; Colby et al., 2017; Jaspers et al., 2018; Malone et al.,
2018a). Of note, the association between the ACWR and injury
risk cannot be interpreted as a manner to predict injuries (Griffin
et al., 2020). There is also a critical claim against its internal
validity (Impellizzeri et al., 2020). The traditional (“coupled”)
ACWR calculation includes acute TL in the numerator and the
chronic TL in the denominator of the equation (Gabbett, 2016).
This can contribute to spurious correlations (Lolli et al., 2019;
Windt and Gabbett, 2019). Meanwhile, the ACWR can help
practitioners to receive a large picture of the player’s TL for not
exposing the player to TL errors (Drew and Finch, 2016). Even
though critical reports exist on the ACWR (Wang et al., 2020),
the International Olympic Committee has recommended using
the ACWR to monitor injury and to provide athletes’ thresholds
to minimize injury occurrence throughout training programs
(Soligard et al., 2016).
In modern training approaches (e.g., tactical periodization;
Delgado-Bordonau and Mendez-Villanueva, 2012), training
sessions combine technical, tactical, mental, and physical aspects
Abbreviations: Acc, number of acceleration; ACWR, acute chronic workload
ratio; Dec, number of deceleration; DTL, daily external training load; FAGD(i),
weighting factor of the difference between the external TL planned and external
TL realized; FGD(i), daily weighting factor; Fw(i), weekly weighting factor; GD,
Game Day; GPS, Global Positioning Systems; Gref, game reference; HSR, high
speed running; M/min, meter per minute; Max speed, maximal speed; SPR, sprint
running; TL, training Load; TLadj(i), the external TL difference between the
external TL planned and external TL realized; TLplan, the external TL planned;
TLreal, external TL realized; VO2 max, maximal oxygen consumption; WTL,
weekly external training load.
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
Monitoring Soccer Players
on specific soccer drills (Dellal et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
physical aspect of soccer drills, manipulation of rules, number
of touches, number of players, duration of exercise, coaching
encouragement, and pitch area are different parameters that
impact their physical demands (Sarmento et al., 2018). On the
other hand, during the season, the number and type of injuries,
the status of the player (starter or not starter), having an illness or
the wellbeing state are different between players (Anderson et al.,
2016; Malone et al., 2018b). Thus, external TL management is a
dynamic, complex and challenging task for sport scientists and
technical staff to combine scientific recommendations inside the
complexity of the training process (Bourdon et al., 2017).
Recently, Malone et al. (2017, 2019) provided methodological
recommendations on how to collect, interpret, and report
GPS data in team sports and thus to avoid some past
methodological issues with its use. Nonetheless, an integration
of the practical approaches combining scientific knowledge and
coaches’ expertise from the “field” appears to be lacking. That
is, studies have made recommendations according to a specific
topic such as external TL or injury prevention (Jaspers et al.,
2018; Bowen et al., 2019), physical development (Clemente et al.,
2019b), or game demands (Barnes et al., 2014). However, on
the “field,” practitioners need to examine recommendations from
a multitude of studies to manage their TL prescription and
monitoring. Thus, the purpose of this opinion paper is to propose
a practical approach for soccer coaches on how to use GPS
data for training load monitoring on a team and individual
level. We suggest that the planning of external TL should be
realized on a monthly, weekly, and daily level in order to reach
collective performance. Inside this collective plan, it is important
to expose each player to individual external TL to enhance
physical performance and lower the risk of sustaining injuries.
RELEVANT PARAMETERS FROM GLOBAL
POSITIONING SYSTEM DATA
The selection of reliable and relevant GPS parameters (Table 1)
depends on the purported use. GPS parameters are useful to
monitor the external TL (e.g., plan external TL, calculate the
ACWR), both individually and collectively, to create specific
training sessions and to analyze their level of specificity (Dellal
et al., 2012). Based on scientific evidence, the total distance
covered, the distance covered at high-speed running (HSR)
measured between 19.8 and 24.8 km/h, the distance covered
at sprint running (SPR) measured over 25.2 km/h, the specific
maximal speed (e.g., to record in the game), the number of
accelerations (≥3 m/s²), and the number of decelerations (≤ −3
m/s²) seem to be relevant GPS parameters to monitor the external
TL in professional soccer (Akenhead et al., 2016; Varley et al.,
2017; Malone et al., 2019). All these GPS parameters represent
the volume of training sessions and games (Figueiredo et al.,
2018). Total distance covered, high speed running, or sprint
running related to the time (expressed in “m/min”) reflect the
intensity and are used to design specific training sessions [e.g.,
rehabilitation sessions (Taberner et al., 2019)] and to delineate
their specificity (e.g., physical activity profile similar to the game;
2 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al. Monitoring Soccer Players

TABLE 1 | Relevant GPS parameters to monitor training load, create specific TABLE 2 | Game reference values from four different pitch positions.
training programs, and analyze the specificity of the training session.
Total HSR (m) SPR (m) Acc (n) Dec (n) Max speed
GPS parameters Abbreviations distance (m) (km/h)

Total distance covered Total Distance CB 9962 493 217 29 22 34

Distance covered at high speed running (19.8 to HSR
25.2 km/h)
Distance covered at sprint running (≥ 25.2 km/h) SPR
Number of accelerating efforts (≥ 3 m/s2 ) Acc
Number of decelerating efforts (≤ −3 m/s2 ) Dec
Maximal speed Max speed
Individualized moderate speed running (between 80 and MSR
99.9% of maximal aerobic speed)
Individualized high-speed running HSR
(between 100% maximal aerobic speed and 29%
anaerobic speed reserve)
Individualized sprint running SPR
(between ≥30% anaerobic reserve speed and 100% of the
maximal sprint test)
Moderate acceleration (between 50 and 75% of maximal MO Acc
acceleration)
High acceleration (≥75% of maximal acceleration) HI Acc
Total distance covered divided by time (M/min) –
Distance covered at sprint running divided by time (m/min) –
Distance of one acceleration (m) –
Distance of one deceleration (m) –
Distance of one high speed running (19.8–25.2 km/h) –
Distance of one sprint running (≥25.2 km/h) –
HSR, individualized high-speed running; LSA, individualized low speed activities; MSR,
individualized moderate speed running; SPR, individualized sprint running.
Figueiredo et al., 2018; Whitehead et al., 2018). In addition, the
distance of high-speed running efforts (i.e., sprints, accelerations,
and decelerations) characterize the specifics of the game or the
training session (Martín-García et al., 2018). For these GPS
parameters, the average, the minimum, and the maximum values
should be considered for analyses (Rago et al., 2019b).
The speed or acceleration threshold (e.g., high speed running
between 19.8 and 24.8 km/h) has been arbitrarily defined and is
equal for all players (Rago et al., 2019b). Other alternatives are to
individualize the speed or acceleration thresholds. Individualized
speed zones are based on a combination of maximal aerobic
speed (MAS) which is derived from the Yo-yo intermittent
recovery test level 1 or tested directly using another test, maximal
sprint speed (MSS) which is derived from the maximal speed
reached during training, and the anaerobic speed reserve (ASR)
which corresponds to <80% of MAS, 80–100% of MAS, 100% of
MAS, or 29% of ASR and ≥30% of ASR (Hunter et al., 2015; Rago
et al., 2019a) (Table 1). For acceleration and deceleration zones,
most studies used +3/−3 m·s−2 as threshold of intense/high
acceleration or deceleration, respectively (Akenhead et al., 2016;
Abbott et al., 2018a; Malone et al., 2019; Rago et al., 2019b).
However, recent studies (Delaney et al., 2017; Rago et al.,
2019b) suggest that a maximum threshold of +2/−2 m·s−2
should be preferred over +3/−3 m·s−2 . Moreover, a limitation
of these thresholds is that the speed is not known from
which accelerations/decelerations actually begin (Rago et al.,
MD 12045 928 353 39 62 34
W-MD 10340 756 378 47 55 34
Attackers 10415 643 348 36 59 35
CB, Center back; MD, Midfielder; W-MD, Wide Midfielder; HSR, high speed running; (m),
meters; (n), number; Acc, number of accelerating efforts up to 3 m/s2 ; Dec, number of
decelerating efforts up to−3 m/s2 ; Max speed, maximal speed.
2019a) (Table 1). Individual speed thresholds which should be
adjusted according to the individual aerobic capacity show
higher associations with perceptual responses to training loads
compared with arbitrary speed thresholds (Rago et al., 2019a).
It has to be acknowledged though that both methods showed
similar sensitivity in depicting players’ locomotor abilities. It
seems though that the two methods should not be used
interchangeably (Rago et al., 2020). The use of individualized
GPS parameters (e.g., acceleration or speed threshold) transcribe
the individual capacity of a player (Abbott et al., 2018b). A
prerequisite of this approach is to regularly evaluate players’
maximal aerobic speed and maximal sprint speed over the course
of a season (Rago et al., 2019a). In the “real world” of professional
soccer, it is not always possible to evaluate players’ capacities to
quantify the training load using individualized GPS parameters
(Carling et al., 2018).
In summary, it can be recommended to determine relevant
GPS parameters, based on arbitrary or individualized thresholds,
as they will fit well with the training programs and their
foundations (Rago et al., 2019b).
PLANNING THE TRAINING LOAD FOR THE
WHOLE TEAM WHILE RESPECTING
INDIVIDUALIZATION
The Importance of Analyzing Game
Performance for Determining Training
Load Reference Values for Each Player
The specific physical activity profile of individual players during
games is used to plan monthly, weekly, and daily external TL,
according to the physical demands of each player recorded
during in-season games (Stevens et al., 2017; Martín-García
et al., 2018). For this purpose, the game reference (Gref ) values
have to be quantified individually (Akenhead and Nassis, 2016).
Individual Gref include every official game of the current and
the previous season. For determining GPS parameters used to
monitor external TL, Gref is arbitrarily calculated as the mean
of the five best values recorded during official games (Table 2)
as players are prepared for the most physical demanding games.
For new players, as a rule, Gref is created, or according to
the reference data from the literature (Ingebrigtsen et al., 2015;
Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015) or with the values of the previous
season on the same competition level.

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org 3 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944

Ravé et al.
FIGURE 1 | Example of a monthly collective plan. HSR, high-speed running; SPR, sprint running; Dec, deceleration; Acc, acceleration.
The example depicted in Table 2 highlights the values of
physical demands (Under 23 UEFA Champion’s League Team)
according to the players’ positions on the pitch during games.
Scheduled Plans With Reference to Games
Performance
Game reference values for each GPS parameter (Table 1) allow
staff to program external TL at both collective and individual
levels (Rago et al., 2019b). Collectively, external TL is calculated
for each GPS parameter by a collective weighted factor (described
below) of game reference values. Gref being specific to each
player, calculation of external TL is individualized (Ingebrigtsen
et al., 2015). For each player, external TL is calculated in meters or
number of events according to the nature of the GPS parameter.
For example, for high speed running, a distance to be covered
in meters is calculated (Sæterbakken et al., 2019) whereas for
acceleration and deceleration, the number of efforts (Varley et al.,
2017) to be achieved is calculated.
It can be recommended to collectively and individually
program the external TL by multiplying Gref by a weighting
factor (e.g., 3.2 for weekly total distance).
Monthly
During the first 4 weeks, external TL increases progressively
to reach the targeted high chronic (4 weeks) TL value. From
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
Monitoring Soccer Players
data recorded in Dutch and English professional soccer leagues,
chronic high total distance would be up to 111,500 m and chronic
high speed running and sprint combined would be up to 3,727
and 6,173 m, respectively (Jaspers et al., 2018; Bowen et al.,
2019). For bouts of acceleration and deceleration, data from the
literature are difficult to use because of the filters that are applied
by the different manufacturers (Varley et al., 2017). From these
published data, we propose a monthly collective plan with one
game per week (Figure 1). For each week and for each GPS
parameter, Gref is weighted by a weekly factor [Fw(i)] to calculate
the weekly external TL (WTL) (Equation 1). Fw(i) is arbitrarily
chosen to reach a high chronic TL described in the literature
(Jaspers et al., 2018; Bowen et al., 2019)
WTL = Fw(i)× Gref (1)
WTL is weekly external TL; Fw(i) Is the weekly weighted factor; (i)
is the number of the weeks; Gref is the game reference value.
Figure 1 illustrates a collective plan of four training weeks.
Total distance, high speed running, sprint, bouts of acceleration
and deceleration increase gradually during the first 3 weeks by
an increase in Fw(i) and a decrease during week 4. For example,
for high speed running, Fw(i) is 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and 1.6 for weeks
1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. External TL increases correspond
to an increase around ∼10% between weeks (Table 3). This
4 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al. Monitoring Soccer Players

10% increase between weeks guarantees an ACWR between 0.80
and 1.20 (Gabbett, 2016). Examples depicted in Table 3 show
the weekly data for four different pitch positions. External TL
planning is a collective framework but, in the “real world,”
individual particularities force to individually adapt the monthly
external load (as later explained on “adjusting individually
external TL”).
To summarize, external TL should be planned to progressively
reach a greater, elevated chronic external TL on a monthly basis.
Game reference is weighted by a weekly factor (for example: Total
distance x 2.8 on week 1, x 3.2 on week 2, x 3.4 on week 3 and x 2.6
on week 4).
Weekly
The weekly training schedule is organized around the game day
(GD) (Akenhead et al., 2016). Training days are scheduled based
on the number of available days for training before and after
the game day (i.e., minus or plus the game day; Clemente et al.,
2019a). In order to adapt the external TL depending on the game
physical demand (see below), the week should start at game day
and finish at game day−1. Following published data (Malone
et al., 2015; Akenhead et al., 2016; Stevens et al., 2017; Martín-
García et al., 2018), weekly external TL is arbitrarily distributed
during the days of the week (DTL). For each day and for each GPS
parameter, Gref is weighted by daily arbitrary factor [FGD(i)] to
calculate daily external TL (Equation 2).
DTL = FGD(i) × Gref (2)
DTL is daily training load; FGD(i) is daily weighting factor; (i) is
the number of the day; Gref is the game reference values.
Figure 2 illustrates week 2 of a monthly collective plan. Game
day +1 is devoted to recover from matches, specifically those
players who played ≥60 min, while players who played ≤30 min
perform a compensatory training session. This figure presents
published data from teams in the Netherlands and Portugal
(Clemente et al., 2019a), game day +3 and game day +4 are
the most important days in terms of external TL whereas an
important reduction in external TL is programed for game
day −1.
As for monthly external TL planning, the weekly external
TL planning is a collective framework but, in the “real world,”
for each day and GPS parameter, a difference between the
planned (TLplan) and the realized (TLreal) TL may occur and
is referred to as TLdiff(i) (Equation 3). For each day of the
week, the difference between TLplan and TLreal is distributed
proportionally at FGD(i) on the subsequent days of the week
(Figure 3). A weighted factor entitled FAGD(i) is also calculated
(Equation 4). Finally, for each day, TLadj(i) is calculated and

TABLE 3 | Weekly external training load calculations for different players and GPS parameters.

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Sum Chronic TL 0.8 × chronic TL 1.5 × chronic TL

TOTAL DISTANCE (M)

CB 27892 (+8%) 31877 (+14%) 35862 (+13%) 25900 (−28%) 121532 30383 24306 45574
MD 33725 (+8%) 38543 (+14%) 43361 (+13%) 31316 (−28%) 146946 36737 29389 55105
W-MD 28953 (+8%) 33089 (+14%) 37226 (+13%) 26885 (−28%) 126153 31538 25231 47308
Attackers 29161 (+8%) 33328 (+14%) 37494 (+13%) 27079 (−28%) 127062 31765 25412 47648
HSR (m)
CB 887 (+13%) 986 (+11%) 1084 (+10%) 789 (−27%) 3746 937 749 1405
MD 1671 (+13%) 1857 (+11%) 2043 (+10%) 1486 (−27%) 7057 1764 1411 2646
W-MD 1362 (+13%) 1513 (+11%) 1664 (+10%) 1210 (−27%) 5749 1437 1150 2156
Attackers 1157 (+13%) 1286 (+11%) 1414 (+10%) 1029 (−27%) 4886 1222 977 1832
SPR (m)
CB 303 (+8%) 325 (+7%) 347 (+7%) 282 (−19%) 1256 314 251 471
MD 495 (+8%) 530 (+7%) 565 (+7%) 459 (−19%) 2049 512 410 769
W-MD 529 (+8%) 567 (+7%) 605 (+7%) 491 (−19%) 2192 548 438 822
Attackers 487 (+8%) 522 (+7%) 556 (+7%) 452 (−19%) 2017 504 403 756
Acc (N)
CB 87 (+7%) 99 (+13%) 110 (+12%) 81 (−26%) 377 94 75 141
MD 116 (+7%) 131 (+13%) 146 (+12%) 108 (−26%) 501 125 100 188
W-MD 141 (+7%) 160 (+13%) 179 (+12%) 132 (−26%) 611 153 122 229
Attackers 107 (+7%) 121 (+13%) 135 (+12%) 99 (−26%) 462 115 92 173
Dec (N)
CB 66 (+7%) 75 (+13%) 84 (+12%) 62 (−26%) 286 72 57 107
MD 185 (+7%) 210 (+13%) 235 (+12%) 173 (−26%) 803 201 161 301
W-MD 166 (+7%) 188 (+13%) 211 (+12%) 155 (−26%) 721 180 144 270
Attackers 175 (+7%) 199 (+13%) 222 (+12%) 164 (−26%) 761 190 152 285

CB, Center back; MD, Midfielder; W-MD, Wide Midfielder; TL, training load; HSR, high speed running; (m), meters; (N), number; Acc, acceleration; Dec, deceleration.

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org 5 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944

Ravé et al. Monitoring Soccer Players

FIGURE 2 | Example of a weekly collective plan (week 2) from individual match reference values. HSR, high-speed running; SPR, sprint running; Dec, decelerations;
Acc, accelerations; GD, game day.

FIGURE 3 | Proportional distribution of the difference between TLplan and TLreal for each day (see text of the paper for abbreviation explanation).

distributed proportionally on the subsequent days of the week factor on the subsequent days of the week; (i) is the number of
(Equation 5). the day; ≥(i) is posterior and include (i).

TLdiff (i) = (TLplan− TLreal ) (3) TLadj(i) = TLdiff (i)× FAGD(i) (5)

Table 4 shows, for 4 different pitch positions, an example of

TLadj(i) is the external TL difference between TLplan and TLreal proportional distribution calculations for total distance, high
on a day (i) speed running, sprint, acceleration and deceleration after game
X day. On game day, TLplan is Gref whereas TLreal is random.
FAGD(i) = FGD(i)/ (FGD≥(i)) (4) On this table, in brackets, the individual distribution of match
external TL during the week is expressed as percentages.
Whereas; FAGD(i) is the weighted factor for the difference On game day −1, at the end of the week, TLplan is the
between daily TLplan
P and daily TLreal; FGD(i) is the daily result of the recorded TLreal on the previous day. It serves as an
weighted factor; (FGD≥(i)) is the sum of the daily weighted information for the technical staff to adapt, if necessary, the last

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org 6 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944

Ravé et al.
FIGURE 4 | Example of a daily team training session. HSR, high- speed running; SPR, sprint running; Dec, decelerations; Acc, accelerations; GD, Game day.
collective training session. For example, if at game day−1, high
speed running distance recorded [game day + (game day +2) +
(game day +3) + (gamed day +4) + game day−2)] is collectively
higher than what was planned, the technical staff can choose to
decrease the pitch area to diminish high speed running distance
while preserving the tactical objective.
To summarize, we recommend the external TL to be planned
on a weekly basis. Game reference has to be weighted using a
daily factor (e.g., 0.6). This should be realized on an individual
level and adjusted according to an algorithm that takes TLplan
and TLreal into account.
Daily
Before training, in accordance with the technical staff, we
program the training session to reach the collective objective
of the day with respect to the planned weekly external TL.
Continuous feedback during the training session allows to adjust
in “real time,” both collectively and individually, the external TL
in relation to TLplan. This adjustment could be met collectively
by modifying a game rule, the pitch area, and the duration of
exercise; and individually by adding a specific physical exercise in
order to reach TLplan of the day. Collective exercises and specific
physical exercises are programmed to meet the physical demands
of the match. Thereby, for each player, the distance covered for
each high-speed running, sprint, acceleration and deceleration in
m/min should be continuously assessed to verify the specificity
of an exercise. Figure 4 shows an example of a training session
in game day +3 of the second week of the monthly planned
external TL. Gref of total distance, high speed running, sprint,
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
Monitoring Soccer Players
bouts of acceleration and deceleration are weighted by 0.65, 0.2,
0.1, 0.9, and 0.9, respectively. In other words, total distance, high
speed running, sprint, acceleration and deceleration represent 65,
20, 10, 90, and 90 percent of Gref, respectively. This training
session combined physical (i.e., acceleration/deceleration specific
endurance), technical (i.e., play with high pressure), tactical
(i.e., press zone and organization formation), and mental (i.e.,
concentration) goals which were defined by the technical staff.
At the end of the training session, two optional specific physical
exercises were assigned to the players who did not reach TLplan.
For this example, the values for the four different positions are
presented in Table 5.
Hence, it can be recommended to build the training sessions to
reach the TLplan. Before the training session starts, the targeted
TL should be calculated for each player individually. In addition,
specific exercises could be prescribed which help the player to
reach the calculated TL.
Adjusting Individually External TL
The great heterogeneity of the team in terms of age, physical
conditioning, history of injry, etc., makes it necessary to
individualize external TL for each player. First, external TL is
programmed by the collective weekly weighted factor [Fw(i) ]
and the daily weighted factor [FGD(i) ]. Subsequently, in order
to meet the needs of each player, Fw(i) and FGD(i) should be
individualized, either to increase or to reduce the external TL
with respect to the collective external TL. Physical performance
and training load adaptation assessments are used to adjust
individually the external TL, on a monthly, weekly, and daily
7 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al. Monitoring Soccer Players

TABLE 4 | Example of weekly external TL distribution adjusted in terms of game physical demands, for each GPS parameters.

WTL GD GD +3 GD +4 GD-2 GD-1

Total distance (x3.2) Total distance Total distance (x0.65) Total distance (x0.75) Total distance (x0.45) Total distance (0.35)

CB 31877 9832 (–1%) 6513 (+0.3%) 7516 (+0.34%) 4509 (+0.2%) 3507 (+0.16%)
MD 38543 11045 (–8%) 8125 (+2.4%) 9375 (+2.6%) 5625 (+1.6%) 4375 (+1.4%)
W-MD 33089 9998 (–3%) 6823 (+0.89%) 7872 (+1.02%) 4723 (+0.61%) 3574 (+0.48%)
Attackers 33328 10254 (–2%) 6816 (+0.59%) 7866 (+0.68%) 4720 (+0.41%) 3671 (0.32%)

HSR (x2) HSR HSR (x0.2) HSR (x0.5) HSR (x0.2) HSR (x0.1)

CB 985 296 (–40%) 138 (+8%) 345 (+20%) 138 (+8%) 69 (+4%)
MD 1857 743 (–20%) 222 (+4%) 557 (+10%) 223 (+4%) 111 (+2%)
W-MD 1513 908 (+20%) 121 (–4%) 303 (–10%) 121 (–4%) 61 (–2%)
Attackers 1286 643 (0%) 129 (0%) 322 (0%) 129 (0%) 64 (0%)

SPR (x1.5) SPR SPR (x0.1) SPR (x0.3) SPR (x0.1) SPR

CB 325 130 (–40%) 39 (+8%) 117 (+24%) 39 (+4%) –

MD 530 283 (–20%) 49 (+4%) 148 (+12%) 49 (+4%) –
W-MD 567 454 (+20%) 23 (–4%) 68 (–12%) 23 (-4%) –
Attackers 522 348 (0%) 35 (0%) 104 (0%) 35 (0%) –

Acc (x3.4) Acc Acc (x0.9) Acc (x0.8) Acc (x0.4) Acc (x0.3)

CB 99 32 (+10%) 25(–3.75%) 22 (–3.33%) 11 (–1.67%) 8 (–1.25%)

MD 131 36 (–6%) 36 (+2.25%) 32 (+2%) 16 (+1%) 12 (+0.75%)
W-MD 160 46 (–2%) 43 (+0.75%) 38 (+0.67%) 19 (+0.33%) 14 (+0.25%)
Attackers 121 34 (–4%) 33 (+1.5%) 29 (+1.33%) 14 (+0.67%) 11 (+0.5%)

Dec (x3.4) Dec Dec (x0.9) Dec (x0.8) Dec (x0.4) Dec (x0.3)

CB 75 25 (+14%) 19 (–5.25%) 17 (–4.67%) 8 (–2.33%) 6 (–1.75%)

MD 210 58 (-6%) 57 (+2.25%) 51 (+2%) 25 (+1%) 19 (+0.75)
W-MD 188 48 (-13%) 53 (+4.9%) 47 (+4.33%) 23 (+2.17%) 18 (1.6%)
Attackers 199 54 (-8%) 53 (+3%) 48 (+2.7%) 24 (+1.3%) 18 (+1%)

CB, Center back; MD, Midfielder; W-MD, Wide Midfielder; HSR, high-speed running expressed in meters; SPR, Sprint running expressed in meters; WTL, weekly training load; GD,
game day. See abbreviation list at the beginning of the paper for definition of abbreviations used and not denoted here.

basis. Monthly, a submaximal aerobic test (e.g., 4 min at 12 km/h)

TABLE 5 | Individual external training load value.
and countermovement jumps provide information about the
aerobic and neuromuscular performance status of the players GD +3 TLplan
(Halson, 2014; Buchheit et al., in press). Weekly at game day
TD (m) HSR (m) SPR (m) Acc (n) Dec (n)
+3, heart rate variability during an orthostatic stand test (Ravé
and Fortrat, 2016; Ravé et al., 2020), and blood creatine kinase CB 6513 138 39 25 19
(Hader et al., 2019) provide information about recovery from MD 8125 223 49 36 57
games. Daily, before the training a wellbeing questionnaire W-MD 6822 121 23 43 53
(e.g., muscular damage, fatigue, sleep quality) (Malone et al., Attackers 6817 141 41 33 54
2018b) and after the training, the session rating of perceived
exertion [e.g., CR-10 Borg scale; (Malone et al., 2018b)] provide CB, Center back; MD, Midfielder; W-MD, Wide Midfielder; HSR, high-speed running; SPR,
Sprint running; TD, Total distance; Acc, accelerations; Dec, Decelerations; m, meters; n,
information on how each player perceives strain and adaptation numbers; TLplan, training load planned; GD, match day.
of each training session. All these information help practitioners
to make the “right decision” about the management of external
TL affecting the player(s). This prescription is dynamic, adaptable
and it can be updated and adjusted daily according to the “real together with the observed external TL adaptations. The
world” if unique situations occur. continuous collection of internal and external TL data on a
To summarize, coaches can individually adjust the weighted monthly, weekly, and daily level including data from the soccer
factor depending on the results of physical performance tests game will help to better manage (e.g., increase or decrease) TL.

Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org 8 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944

Ravé et al.
Limitations, Strengths, and Practical Applications
This practical approach tries to build a theoretical framework
using knowledge from sport science to monitor training load
during “real world” soccer practice. However, some limitations
must be acknowledged concerning the weighted factors discussed
[e.g., Fw(i) and FGD(i)]. More specifically, these factors were
chosen, for the team, arbitrarily from published data and from
existing monitored data. Future studies are needed to more
precisely define and validate the scientific process to access
these weighted factors [e.g., Fw(i) and FGD(i)] for accuracy.
However, the practical approach discussed herein is, to our
knowledge, the first publication attempting to combine the
scientific recommendations and actual coaching experience
on the field. This combined approach can open up working
perspectives for practitioners for external TL prescription. In
practice, it is important to be sure of the reliability of the
used GPS data. Furthermore, players should keep the same
device all season during both training sessions and games. After
choosing the relevant GPS parameters, both arbitrarily and
with individualized thresholds, the parameters used should be
the same over the whole season and it is not recommended
to change the parameters. The game reference for each GPS
parameter used is specific for each player. The collective plan
of external TL is updated on a monthly, weekly, and daily
bases. Finally, the adjustment of the external TL of a player
REFERENCES
Abbott, W., Brickley, G., and Smeeton, N. J. (2018b). An individual
approach to monitoring locomotive training load in English Premier
League academy soccer players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coaching 13, 421–428.
doi: 10.1177/1747954118771181
Abbott, W., Brickley, G., Smeeton, N. J., and Mills, S. (2018a). Individualizing
acceleration in english premier league academy soccer players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 32, 3503–3510. doi: 10.1519/JSC.00000000000
02875
Akenhead, R., Harley, J. A., and Tweddle, S. P. (2016). Examining the
external training load of an English Premier League football team with
special reference to acceleration. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 30, 2424–2432.
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001343
Akenhead, R., and Nassis, G. P. (2016). Training load and player monitoring
in high-level football: current practice and perceptions. Int. J. Sports Physiol.
Perform. 11, 587–593. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0331
Anderson, L., Orme, P., Di Michele, R., Close, G. L., Milsom, J., Morgans, R.,
et al. (2016). Quantification of seasonal-long physical load in soccer players
with different starting status from the english premier league: implications
for maintaining squad physical fitness. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 11,
1038–1046. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0672
Barnes, C., Archer, D. T., Hogg, B., Bush, M., and Bradley, P. S. (2014). The
evolution of physical and technical performance parameters in the English
Premier League. Int. J. Sports Med. 35, 1095–1100. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-
1375695
Bourdon, P. C., Cardinale, M., Murray, A., Gastin, P., Kellmann, M., Varley,
M. C., et al. (2017). Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement.
Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12, S2-161–S2-170. doi: 10.1123/IJSPP.
2017-0208
Bowen, L., Gross, A. S., Gimpel, M., Bruce-Low, S., and Li, F. X. (2019). Spikes
in acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with a 5-7 times greater
injury rate in English Premier League football players: a comprehensive 3-year
study. Br. J. Sports. Med. 21:422. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099422
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
Monitoring Soccer Players
depends on the difference between TLplan and TLreal while
considering the results from physical performance tests and
training load adaptations.
CONCLUSIONS
GPS is a valid, reliable and relevant tool for tracking the external
TL in professional soccer. Previous scientific recommendations
have highlighted the importance of monitoring the external TL
to reduce injury risk and optimize players’ physical performance.
In this opinion paper, we have proposed an approach on how to
use GPS data to analyze, prescribe, and control the external TL in
elite soccer, both collectively (i.e., team) and individually.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
GR and HZ conceived and designed the idea. All authors wrote
and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved
the manuscript.
FUNDING
The authors acknowledge the support of the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing
Fund of the University of Potsdam, Germany.
Bowen, L., Gross, A. S., Gimpel, M., and Li, F. X. (2017). Accumulated workloads
and the acute:chronic workload ratio relate to injury risk in elite youth football
players. Br. J. Sports Med. 51, 452–459. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095820
Buchheit, M., and Simpson, B. M. (2017). Player tracking technology: half-
full or half-empty glass? Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12, S235–S241.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0499
Buchheit, M., Simpson, B. M., and Lacome, M. (in press). Monitoring
cardiorespiratory fitness in professional soccer players: is it worth the prick?
Int. J. Sports. Physiol. Perform.
Carling, C., Lacome, M., McCall, A., Dupont, G., Le Gall, F., Simpson, B., et al.
(2018). Monitoring of post-match fatigue in professional soccer: welcome to
the real world. Sports. Med. 48, 2695–2702. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0935-z
Clemente, F. M., Nikolaidis, P. T., Rosemann, T., and Knechtle, B. (2019b).
Dose-response relationship between external load variables, body composition,
and fitness variables in professional soccer players. Front. Physiol. 17:443.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00443
Clemente, F. M., Owen, A., Serra-Olivares, J., Nikolaidis, P. T., Cornelis, M., van
der Linden, I., et al. (2019a). Characterization of the weekly external load profile
of professional soccer teams from portugal and the Netherlands. J. Hum. Kinet.
27, 155–164. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2018-0054
Colby, M. J., Dawson, B., Peeling, P., Heasman, J., Rogalski, B., Drew, M. K.,
et al. (2017). Multivariate modelling of subjective and objective monitoring
data improve the detection of non-contact injury risk in elite Australian
footballers. J. Sci Med. Sport. 20, 1068–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.
05.010
Delaney, J. A., Cummins, C. J., Heidi, R,T., and Grant, M., D (2017). Importance,
reliability, and usefulness of acceleration measures in team sports. J. Strength.
Cond. Res. 32, 3485–3493. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001849
Delgado-Bordonau, J. L., and Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2012). Tactical
periodization: MoUrinho’s BesT-kePT secreT? Soccer J. (Tactics). 28–34.
Dellal, A., Owen, A., Wong, D. P., Krustrup, P., van Exsel, M., and Mallo,
J. (2012). Technical and physical demands of small vs. large sided games
in relation to playing position in elite soccer. Hum. Mov. Sci. 31, 957–969.
doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2011.08.013
9 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al.
Drew, M. K., and Finch, C. F. (2016). The relationship between training load and
injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review. Sports. Med. 46,
861–883. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8
Duhig, S., Shield, A. J., Opar, D., Gabbett, T. J., Ferguson, C., and Williams, M.
(2016). Effect of high-speed running on hamstring strain injury risk. Br. J.
Sports. Med. 50, 1536–1540. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095679
Figueiredo, P., Nassis, G. P., and Brito, J. (2018). The within-subject correlation
between salivary IgA and measures of training load in elite football players. Int.
J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 14, 1–11. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0455
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Hicks, K. M., and Hayes, P. R. (2018). Dose-response
relationship between training load and changes in aerobic fitness in
professional youth soccer players. Int. J. Sports. Physiol. Perform. 19, 1–6.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0843
Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training-injury prevention paradox: should
athletes be training smarter and harder? Br. J. Sports Med. 50, 273–280.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788
Gabbett, T. J. (2020). Debunking the myths about training load, injury and
performance: empirical evidence, hot topics and recommendations for
practitioners. Br. J. Sports. Med. 54, 58–66. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099784
Griffin, A., Kenny, I. C., Comyns, T. M., and Lyons, M. (2020). The
association between the acute:chronic workload ratio and injury and its
application in team sports: a systematic review. Sports. Med. 50, 561–580
doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01218-2
Hader, K., Rumpf, M. C., Hertzog, M., Kilduff, L. P., Girard, O., and Silva, J.
R. (2019). Monitoring the athlete match response: can external load variables
predict post-match acute and residual fatigue in soccer? A systematic review
with meta-analysis. Sports. Med. Open. 9:548. doi: 10.1186/s40798-019-0219-7
Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.
Sports. Med. 44, S139–S147. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z
Hunter, F., Bray, J., C., Towlson, C., Smith, M., Barrett, S., Madden, J., et al.
(2015). Individualisation of time-motion analysis: a method comparison and
case report series. Int. J. Sports. Med. 36, 41–48. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1384547
Impellizzeri, F. M., Marcora, S. M., and Coutts, A. J. (2019). Internal and
external training load: 15 years on. Int. J. Sports. Physiol Perform. 14, 270–273.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0935
Impellizzeri, F. M., Woodcock, S., Coutts, A. J., Fanchini, M., McCall, A., and
Vigotsky, A. D. (2020). Acute to Random Chronic Workload Ratio is ‘as’
Associated With Injury as Acute to Actual Chronic Workload Ratio: Time to
Dismiss ACWR and Its Components. Society for Transparency. Openness and
Replication in Kinesiology. doi: 10.31236/osf.io/e8kt4
Ingebrigtsen, J., Dalen, T., Hjelde, G. H., Drust, B., and Wisløff, U. (2015).
Acceleration and sprint profiles of a professional elite football team in match
play. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 15, 101–110. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.933879
Jaspers, A., Brink, M. S., Probst, S. G., Frencken, W. G., and Helsen, W. F.
(2017). Relationships between training load indicators and training outcomes
in professional soccer. Sports Med. 47, 533–544. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-
0591-0
Jaspers, A., Kuyvenhoven, J. P., Staes, F., Frencken, W. G. P., Helsen, W. F., and
Brink, M. S. (2018). Examination of the external and internal load indicators’
association with overuse injuries in professional soccer players. J. Sci Med.
Sport. 21, 579–585. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.10.005
Lago-Peñas, C. (2012). The role of situational variables in analysing
physical performance in soccer. J. Hum. Kinet. 35, 89–95.
doi: 10.2478/v10078-012-0082-9
Lee, M., and Mukherjee, S. (2019). Relationship of training load with high-
intensity running in professional soccer players. Int. J. Sports Med. 40, 336–343.
doi: 10.1055/a-0855-3843
Lolli, L., Batterham, A. M., Hawkins, R., Kelly, D. M., Strudwick, A. J., Thorpe,
R., et al. (2019). Mathematical coupling causes spurious correlation within the
conventional acute-to-chronic workload ratio calculations. Br. J. Sports. Med.
53, 921–922. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098110
Malone, J. J., Barrett, S., Barnes, C., Twist, C., and Drust, B. (2019). To infinity and
beyond: the use of GPS devices within the football codes. Sci. Med in Football.
4, 82–84. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2019.1679871
Malone, J. J., Di Michele, R., Morgans, R., Burgess, D., Morton, J. P., and
Drust, B. (2015). Seasonal training-load quantification in elite English
premier league soccer players. Int. J. Sports. Physiol. Perform. 10, 489–497.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2014-0352
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
Monitoring Soccer Players
Malone, J. J., Lovell, R., Varley, M. C., and Coutts, A. J. (2017). Unpacking
the black box: applications and considerations for using GPS devices in
sport. Int. J. Sports. Physiol. Perform. 12, S218–S226. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.
2016-0236
Malone, S., Owen, A., Mendes, B., Hughes, B., Collins, K., and Gabbett, T. J.
(2018a). High-speed running and sprinting as an injury risk factor in soccer:
can well-developed physical qualities reduce the risk? J. Sci. Med Sport. 21,
257–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.05.016
Malone, S., Owen, A., Newton, M., Mendes, B., Tiernan, L., Hughes,
B., et al. (2018b). Wellbeing perception and the impact on external
training output among elite soccer players. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 21, 29–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.03.019
Martín-García, A., Gómez Díaz, A., Bradley, P. S., Morera, F., and Casamichana,
D. (2018). Quantification of a professional football team’s external load
using a microcycle structure. J. Strength. Cond Res. 32, 3511–3518.
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002816
Maupin, D., Schram, B., Canetti, E., and Orr, R. (2020). The relationship
between acute: chronic workload ratios and injury risk in sports: a systematic
review. Open. Access. J. Sports. Med. 11, 51–75. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.
S231405
Nikolaidis, P. T., Clemente, F. M., van der Linden, C. M. I., Rosemann, T., and
Knechtle, B. (2018). Validity and reliability of 10-Hz global positioning system
to assess in-line movement and change of direction. Front. Physiol. 15:228.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00228
Owen, A. L., Forsyth, J. J., Wong del, P., Dellal, A., Connelly, S. P., and
Chamari, K. (2015). Heart rate-based training intensity and its impact on injury
incidence among elite-level professional soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res.
29, 1705–1712. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000810
Pettersen, S. A., Johansen, H. D., Baptista, I. A. M., Halvorsen, P., and Johansen,
D. (2018). Quantified soccer using positional data: a case study. Front. Physiol.
6:866. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00866
Rago, V., Brito, J., Figueiredo, P., Costa, J., Barreira, D., Krustrup, P., et al. (2019b).
Methods to collect and interpret external training load using microtechnology
incorporating GPS in professional football: a systematic review. Res. Sports.
Med. 22, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2019.1686703
Rago, V., Brito, J., Figueiredo, P., Krustrup, P., and Rebelo, A. (2019a).
Relationship between external load and perceptual responses to training in
professional football: effects of quantification method. Sports (Basel). 7:68.
doi: 10.3390/sports7030068
Rago, V., Brito, J., Figueiredo, P., Krustrup, P., and Rebelo, A. (2020). Application
of individualized speed zones to quantify external training load in professional
soccer. J. Hum. Kinetics. 72, 279–289. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0113
Rago, V., Krustrup, P., Martín-Acero, R., Rebelo, A., and Mohr, M.
(2019c). Training load and submaximal heart rate testing throughout a
competitive period in a top-level male football team. J. Sports. Sci. 26, 1–8.
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1618534
Ravé, G., and Fortrat, J. O. (2016). Heart rate variability in the standing position
reflects training adaptation in professional soccer players. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
116, 1575–1582. doi: 10.1007/s00421-016-3416-9
Ravé, G., Zouhal, H., Boullosa, D., Doyle-Baker, P. K., Saeidi, A., Abderrahman,
A. B., et al. (2020). Heart rate variability is correlated with perceived
physical fitness in elite soccer players. J. Hum. Kinet. 31, 141–150.
doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0103
Redwood-Brown, A. J., O’Donoghue, P. G., Nevill, A. M., Saward, C., Dyer, N., and
Sunderland, C. (2018). Effects of situational variables on the physical activity
profiles of elite soccer players in different score line states. Scand. J. Med. Sci
Sports. 28, 2515–2526. doi: 10.1111/sms.13271
Russell, M., Sparkes, W., Northeast, J., Cook, C. J., Love, T. D., Bracken, R. M.,
et al. (2016). Changes in acceleration and deceleration capacity throughout
professional soccer match-play. J. Strength. Cond Res. 30, 2839–2844.
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000805
Sæterbakken, A., Haug,V., Fransson, D., Grendstad, H. N., Gundersen, H. S.,
Moe, V. F., et al. (2019). Match running performance on three different
competitive standards in norwegian soccer. Sports. Med. Int. Open. 16, E82–
E88. doi: 10.1055/a-0943-3682
Sarmento, H., Clemente, F. M., Harper, D., da Costa, I. T., Owen, A., and
Figueiredo, A. J. (2018). Small sided games in soccer-a systematic review. Int. J.
Perform. Anal. Sport. 18, 693–749. doi: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1517288
10 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944
Ravé et al.
Soligard, T., Schwellnus, M., Alonso, J. M., Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Dijkstra,
H. P., et al. (2016). How much is too much? (Part 1) International
Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of
injury. Br. J. Sports. Med. 50, 1030–1041. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-
096581
Stevens, T., G. A., de Ruiter, C. J., Twisk, J. W. R., Savelsbergh, G.
J. P., and Beek, P. J. (2017). Quantification of in-season training
load relative to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie football
players. Sci. Med. Football. 2, 117–125. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2017.
1282163
Suarez-Arrones, L., Torreño, N., Requena, B., Sáez De Villarreal, E., Casamichana,
D., Barbero-Alvarez, J. C., et al. (2015). Match-play activity profile in
professional soccer players during official games and the relationship between
external and internal load. J. Sports. Med. Phys. Fitness 55, 1417–1422.
Taberner, M., Allen, T., and Cohen, D. D. (2019). Progressing rehabilitation
after injury: consider the ‘control-chaos continuum’. Br. J. Sports. Med. 53,
1132–1136. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100157
Varley, M. C., Jaspers, A., Helsen, W. F., and Malone, J. J. (2017). Methodological
considerations when quantifying high-intensity efforts in team sport using
global positioning system technology. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12,
1059–1068. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0534
Wang, C., Vargas, J. T., Stokes, T., Steele, R., and Shrier, I. (2020). Analyzing activity
and injury: lessons learned from the acute:chronic workload ratio. Sports. Med.
50, 1243–1254. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01280-1
Frontiers in Physiology | www.frontiersin.org
View publication stats
Monitoring Soccer Players
Whitehead, S., Till, K., Weaving, D., and Jones, B. (2018). The use of
microtechnology to quantify the peak match demands of the football codes: a
systematic review. Sports. Med. 48, 2549–2575. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0965-6
Williams, S., West, S., Cross, M. J., and Stokes, K. A. (2017). Better way to
determine the acute:chronic workload ratio? Br. J. Sports. Med. 51, 209–210.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096589
Windt, J., and Gabbett, T. J. (2019). Is it all for naught? what does mathematical
coupling mean for acute:chronic workload ratios? Br. J. Sports. Med. 53,
988–990. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098925
Conflict of Interest: GR is employed by company Toulouse Football Club
(Toulouse, France).
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of
any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Ravé, Granacher, Boullosa, Hackney and Zouhal. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
11 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 944